... [SPOILER] has murdered [SPOILER]!
Last Thursday cat9 and I went (with a group of people, though that turns out not to matter too much) to see Sleep No More. It was creepy, and vivid, and grim, and I'm glad that I had the experience. But, after lengthy reflection, I don't think that I would want to go again, even ignoring the fact that the full run is sold out.
I would say that, to my surprise, I didn't know enough going in to this to enjoy it as much as I could have. I came in expecting something that was basically a play, although obviously an immersive* one, and was loosely Macbeth. In both of those respects I found it lacking, and because of the find-it-yourself nature of the performance I kept hunting around for more pieces of the puzzle, trying to see as much as I could and figure it all out. Whereas on reflection I don't believe there is any depth to unravel, and it would be better to just enjoy whatever parts of it you happened to see.
The other thing I didn't know was that it was supposed to be an adaptation of anything other than Macbeth. I figured that there were original elements, but I had never seen or read Rebecca, so I had no context from which to recognize those parts. And, to be honest, the Macbeth parts only very weakly expressed any actual Macbethiness, such that if I hadn't known it was supposed to be there I probably wouldn't have worked that out either.
And that's really the crux of my problem with the performance: I went in looking for a play, and this has very little of a play in it. Taken on its own terms, it is a phenomenally creepy haunted house, with superb athletic interpretive dance. But the tantalizing feeling I had that there was something more to figure out, some hidden secrets that seeing just a few more scenes would unlock, is a chimerical one. The plot is the barest of sketches, and you really have to fill in your own interpretation if you want it to mean anything.
So, on its own, without comparing it to a production of Macbeth, it was a dreamlike, or rather nightmarish, potent series of setpieces, and I have absolutely never experienced anything like it, which is a great virtue on its own. But I do wonder why they didn't use more of the truly creepy stuff that's already in Macbeth. The way they handled Banquo's ghost, or the witches' apparitions, or the moving trees, was almost wholly devoid of supernatural qualities. Strangely, the actual actors seemed practically mundane in contrast to the sets they occupied.
At one point, having already seen parts of a couple of plot loops already, I was hoping to catch Macbeth murdering Duncan. Based on what I'd seen I thought it might be a dramatic pas de deux between Macbeth and a dagger outside the bedchamber, each struggling for mastery as he feels himself pulled into the dark act, until he pulls back from nearly brushing Duncan's throat, puts down the dagger, and crumples with obvious relief... as Lady Macbeth steps out from behind a curtain and plunges the blade into Duncan's heart. Wouldn't that have been pretty fabulous? Instead Macbeth walks in with grim slowness, grimly holds a pillow over Duncan's face, stares with stony blankness at his suddenly bloody hands, and stalks grimly out. That's no awful, but... all it shows is "Macbeth murders Duncan", without any character development, without any interaction... without any plot, basically. It's like a speed-through bullet-point version, only carried out immensely slowly. As a play, I was substantially underwhelmed.
But, again, I think that's largely my problem. I wanted it to be a play, and I honestly think that's not how it's best viewed. So my negative reaction is pretty strongly tainted with my mismatched expectations. I guess, in summary, I don't quite no what to make of it, which is probably a good thing for any piece of art.
*I would call this immersive theatre in that it happens around you, but not as I have seen elsewhere "interactive theatre", because you are still a passive recipient of the show, even if you can choose which part of it to receive.
I would say that, to my surprise, I didn't know enough going in to this to enjoy it as much as I could have. I came in expecting something that was basically a play, although obviously an immersive* one, and was loosely Macbeth. In both of those respects I found it lacking, and because of the find-it-yourself nature of the performance I kept hunting around for more pieces of the puzzle, trying to see as much as I could and figure it all out. Whereas on reflection I don't believe there is any depth to unravel, and it would be better to just enjoy whatever parts of it you happened to see.
The other thing I didn't know was that it was supposed to be an adaptation of anything other than Macbeth. I figured that there were original elements, but I had never seen or read Rebecca, so I had no context from which to recognize those parts. And, to be honest, the Macbeth parts only very weakly expressed any actual Macbethiness, such that if I hadn't known it was supposed to be there I probably wouldn't have worked that out either.
And that's really the crux of my problem with the performance: I went in looking for a play, and this has very little of a play in it. Taken on its own terms, it is a phenomenally creepy haunted house, with superb athletic interpretive dance. But the tantalizing feeling I had that there was something more to figure out, some hidden secrets that seeing just a few more scenes would unlock, is a chimerical one. The plot is the barest of sketches, and you really have to fill in your own interpretation if you want it to mean anything.
So, on its own, without comparing it to a production of Macbeth, it was a dreamlike, or rather nightmarish, potent series of setpieces, and I have absolutely never experienced anything like it, which is a great virtue on its own. But I do wonder why they didn't use more of the truly creepy stuff that's already in Macbeth. The way they handled Banquo's ghost, or the witches' apparitions, or the moving trees, was almost wholly devoid of supernatural qualities. Strangely, the actual actors seemed practically mundane in contrast to the sets they occupied.
At one point, having already seen parts of a couple of plot loops already, I was hoping to catch Macbeth murdering Duncan. Based on what I'd seen I thought it might be a dramatic pas de deux between Macbeth and a dagger outside the bedchamber, each struggling for mastery as he feels himself pulled into the dark act, until he pulls back from nearly brushing Duncan's throat, puts down the dagger, and crumples with obvious relief... as Lady Macbeth steps out from behind a curtain and plunges the blade into Duncan's heart. Wouldn't that have been pretty fabulous? Instead Macbeth walks in with grim slowness, grimly holds a pillow over Duncan's face, stares with stony blankness at his suddenly bloody hands, and stalks grimly out. That's no awful, but... all it shows is "Macbeth murders Duncan", without any character development, without any interaction... without any plot, basically. It's like a speed-through bullet-point version, only carried out immensely slowly. As a play, I was substantially underwhelmed.
But, again, I think that's largely my problem. I wanted it to be a play, and I honestly think that's not how it's best viewed. So my negative reaction is pretty strongly tainted with my mismatched expectations. I guess, in summary, I don't quite no what to make of it, which is probably a good thing for any piece of art.
*I would call this immersive theatre in that it happens around you, but not as I have seen elsewhere "interactive theatre", because you are still a passive recipient of the show, even if you can choose which part of it to receive.